On Sunday 30 March 2008 14:10, Ron Ritzman wrote:
That's the drawback with referring to secondary sources exclusively. What do you do when those sources contradict something you definitely know to be true? Strictly following WP policy, the only thing you can do is not even mention whether or not a bridge is open.
Which is why "strictly following policy" is stupid.
I've said it before, I've said it again: we need to make it clear to newcomers that *policy is not prescriptive*. It is not normative *AT ALL*. It is merely *descriptive*.
We've got a whole generation now of newer editors who can recite "policy" forwards and backwards, but they don't actually "get it"--they don't "get" Wikipedia; they don't "get" that "policy" (to whatever extent) is merely a means to an end rather than an end in itself; they don't "get" that bureaucratic masturbation and wonkery is not helpful AT ALL.
The worst part is, these people are starting to take over.
It's frustrating.